2 Clarkson, L. A., ‘The writing of Irish economic and social history since 1968’ in Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xxxiii, no. 1 (1980), p. 101.Google Scholar

3 An impish observation might be that this belief derives from the reluctance of Irish historians to read what social scientists have been offering, a possibility hardly diminished by the exclusion from Clarkson’s lengthy bibliography of such innovative work as Gibbon, Peter and Higgins, M. D., ‘Patronage, tradition and modernization: the case of the Irish “gombeenman”’ in Economic and Social Review, vi, no. 1 (1974), pp 27–44 Google Scholar; Symes, D. G., ‘Farm household and farm performance: a study of twentieth-century changes in Ballyferriter, south west Ireland’ in Ethnology, xi, no. 1 (1972), pp 25–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gibbon, Peter and Curtin, C., ‘The stem family in Ireland’ in Comparative Studies in Society and History, xx (1978), pp 429-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Frank, ‘Protestant ideology and politics in Ulster’ in European Journal of Sociology, xiv, (1973), pp 213-80Google Scholar; Hechter, Michael, Internal colonialism: the Celtic fringe in British national development, 1536-1966 (London, 1975)Google Scholar. On the other hand, there have been recent attempts at historically-minded sociology — most conveniently clustered in the published proceedings of the Sociological Association of Ireland — which make less than compelling reading for historians.

4 For example, such quantitative studies as McKenna, E. E.’s ‘Age, region and marriage in post-Famine Ireland: an empirical examination’ in Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xxxi, no. 2 (1978), pp 238-56, are considered to be marginally beyond the pale.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Gráda, Cormac Ó, ‘Supply responsiveness in Irish agriculture during the nineteenth century’ in Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xxviii, no. 2 (1975), pp 312-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Nicholas, S. I. and Dziegielewski, M., ‘Supply elasticities, rationality, and structural change in Irish agriculture, 1850-1925’ in Economic History Review, 2nd ed., xxxiii, no. 3 (1980), pp 411-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ó Gráda’s rejoinder — ‘Supply elasticities in Irish agriculture: a reply’ — is contained in the same issue (pp 415–16).

7 Compare such earlier works as: Barrington, Thomas, ‘A review of Irish agricultural prices’ in Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, xv (1926-7), pp 249-80Google Scholar; Staehle, Hans, ‘Statistical notes on the economic history of Irish agriculture, 1847-1913’ in Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, xviii (1951-2), pp 444-62Google Scholar; Crotty, R. D., Irish agricultural production: its volume and structure (Cork, 1966).Google Scholar

8 Ó Gráda, ‘Supply responsiveness’, pp 313–14.

9 However most of the supply elasticities calculated for the opening quarter of the twentieth century are higher — in some instances appreciably higher — than in the period immediately after the famine. A convincing demonstration, therefore, of the claim (Ó Gráda, loc. cit., p. 314) that Irish farmers were ‘as fully exposed to market forces in the 1850s as they were in the 1910s and 1920s’ must rest on evidence other than these estimates of supply responsiveness.

10 Crotty, Irish agricultural production, pp 84–107.

11 Ó Gráda, ‘Supply responsiveness’, pp 314–15.

12 The classic statement of the dual economy thesis for Ireland is Lynch, Patrick and Vaizey, John, Guinness’s brewery in the Irish economy, 1759-1876 (Cambridge, 1960)Google Scholar. This position is echoed by Larkin, Emmet in his ‘Economic growth, capital investment, and the Roman Catholic church in nineteenth-century Ireland’ in American Historical Review, lxxii, no. 3 (1967), pp 852-84CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Trenchant criticisms of this characterisation of pre-Famine economy are to be found in Lee, J. J., ‘The dual economy in Ireland, 1800-1850’ in Williams, T. D. (ed.), Historical studies, viii (Dublin, 1971), pp 191–201 Google Scholar, and in Johnson, J. H., ‘The two “Irelands” at the beginning of the nineteenth century’ in Stephens, N. and Glasscock, R. E. (eds.), Irish geographical studies (Belfast, 1970), pp 224-43.Google Scholar

13 Nicholas and Dziegielewski, ‘Supply elasticities’, p. 411.

14 Ibid., p. 413.

15 Ibid., p. 413.

16 Gráda, Cormac Ó, ‘The beginnings of the Irish creamery system, 1880-1914’ in Economic History Review, 2nd ser., xxx, no. 2 (1977), pp 284–305.Google Scholar

17 Kennedy, Liam, ‘Agricultural co-operation and Irish rural society, 1880-1914’ (unpublished D.Phil, thesis, University of York, 1978), pp 95-9.Google Scholar

18 Ó Gráda, ‘Irish creamery system’, pp 293–4.

19 The co-efficient of variation for milch cow numbers in poor law unions in 1876 is 0.571 (n = 163). The value for 1888 is 0.550 (n = 161), suggesting possibly a slight decline in regional specialisation. Between 1888 and 1913, the major period of the diffusion of the creamery, the co-efficient rises from 0.550 to 0.611, indicating a redistribution of the dairy herd in favour of a more spatially concentrated pattern. (The number of poor law unions, it may be noted, had contracted slightly by 1913 to 158.) The above calculations are based on data in the Agricultural statistics of Ireland for the year 1876, pp 56–9, H.C. 1877 [C. 1749], lxxxv, pp 584–7; Agricultural statistics of Ireland for the year 1888, p. 45–8, H.C. 1889 [C.5785], lxxxiii, 259–62; and Agricultural statistics of Ireland for the year 1913, pp. 101–9, H.C. 1914 [Cd. 7429], xcviii, 725–33.

20 It should be noted though that the purpose of our detailed discussion of the creamery-diffusion model is not seriously to question either Ó Gráda’s approach or conclusions. Its major and more general function is to illustrate some characteristic issues in, and limitations to, econometric exercises.

21 Ó Gráda, ‘Irish creamery system’, p. 294.

22 In the traditional historiography of the agricultural co-operative movement there is considerable stress on the role of expertise, finance, and organising activity emanating from sources outside the farming community. Thus implicit in this literature is a consideration of the role of supply factors in the diffusion process. See, for example, Smith-Gordon, Lionel and Staples, L. C., Rural reconstruction in Ireland (London, 1917)Google Scholar; Digby, Margaret, Horace Plunkett: an Anglo-American Irishman (Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar; and Bolger, Patrick, The Irish co-operative movement (Dublin, 1979)Google Scholar. While writers in this tradition undoubtedly exaggerate the significance of such factors, this does not mean that such considerations can be safely ignored by other writers.

23 See Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, Annual report, 1913 (Dublin, 1914).Google ScholarPubMed

24 Kennedy, ‘Agricultural co-operation’, pp 7–8, 102. In fairness it should be pointed out that the evidence for this view is not conclusive and that it is not a viewpoint accepted by Ó Gráda (private communication, 1979).

25 Based on data contained in statistical appendices to annual reports of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society for the years 1894–1913.

26 Mokyr, Joel, ‘Malthusian models and Irish history’ in Journal of Economic History, xl, no. 1 (1980), pp 159-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 A forthcoming book by Joel Mokyr on pre-famine economy will no doubt elaborate on these points.

28 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 164.

29 According to Mokyr (p. 162) ‘the 458,000 males in the largely rural province of Connacht had only 42 prostitutes at their disposal’ in 1851. In fact — if one is prepared to accept census data — the ratio is even more unfavourable, there being 496,000 males in Connacht in that year. More importantly, though, this is a rather innocent use of census material, given the sensitive nature of the occupation. There can scarcely be any doubt that the ‘Connacht 42’ were assisted by many others who lay beyond the reach, metaphorically speaking, of the enumerators. In 1863 (the first year for which judicial statistics are available), when the population of the province was some 10% less than the 1851 level, one finds that there were 212 ‘known’ prostitutes and 22 ‘brothels and houses of ill fame’ in Connacht. One hesitates to suggest a ‘vice explosion’ in the west to explain away the massive discrepancy between reported numbers of prostitutes in 1851 and 1863. It may be added that the judicial statistics very probably suffer from some underreporting. See Judicial statistics (Ireland): returns for the year 1863, p. 10, H.C. 1864 [3418], lvii, 702.

30 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 164.

31 Report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the fairs and markets in Ireland, p. 1, H.C. 1852–3 [1674], xli, 79; Kennedy, Liam, ‘Regional specialisation, railway development and Irish agriculture in the nineteenth century’ in Goldstrom, J. M. and Clarkson, L. A. (eds.), Irish population, economy and society: essays in honour of the late K. H. Connell (Oxford, 1981), pp 173-93.Google Scholar

32 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 164.

33 Report of the commissioners appointed to take the census of Ireland for the year 1841, pp. xxv–xxvi, 440, 448–9, H.C. 1843 [504], xxiv, 25–6, 552, 560–61.

34 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 164.

35 Black, R. D. C., Economic thought and the Irish question, 1817-70 (Cambridge, 1960), p. 86 Google Scholar; Galbraith, J. K., The affluent society (Boston, 1958), p. 39.Google Scholar

36 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 165.

37 Ibid., p. 165.

38 Almquist, Eric, ‘Pre-Famine Ireland and the theory of European proto-industrialisation: evidence from the 1841 census’ in Journal of Economic History, xxxix, no. 3 (1979), pp 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 710.

40 Chambers, J. D., ‘The Vale of Trent, 1670-1800’ in Economic History Review Supplements, no. 3 (1958), pp 1–63 Google Scholar; Mendels, Franklin, ‘Proto-industrialisation: the first phase of the industrialisation process’ in Journal of Economic History, xxxii, no. 1 (1972)Google Scholar; Connell, K. H., The population of Ireland, 1750-1845 (Oxford 1950)Google Scholar; Cullen, L. M., An economic history of Ireland since 1660 (London, 1972).Google Scholar

41 Other potential problems with Mokyr’s approach have been noted earlier, and these are of course relevant when assessing the plausibility of his findings on the implications of proto-industry.

42 Mokyr, ‘Malthusian models’, p. 165.

43 The Irish case illustrates the more general point: food shortage due to natural disaster is not necessarily independent of Malthusian pressures. The crucial nexus here is the risk element: the probability of widespread failure of the food supply following adoption of a more productive, but narrower food base, under conditions of rapid population growth.

44 Mokyr, Joel, ‘The deadly fungus: an econometric investigation into the shortterm demographic impact of the Irish famine, 1846-51’ in Simon, J. L. (ed.), Research in population economics (Greenwich, Conn., 1980), pp 237-77.Google Scholar

45 See, for example, Cousens, S. H., ‘Regional death rates in Ireland during the great famine from 1846 to 1851’ in Population Studies, xiv, no. 1 (1960), pp 55–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cullen, Economic history of Ireland, p. 134.

46 Cousens, ‘Regional death rates’, pp 55–74.

47 Mokyr, ‘Deadly fungus’, p. 244.

48 Ibid., pp 248–51. It may be noted that provincial findings on (excess) death rates and total deaths during the famine vary considerably depending on the methods and assumptions used. Though county results are not shown, this is presumably even more true at that level of disaggregation. For Ulster, for example, the range of lower bound estimates of total excess deaths stretches from 192,000 to 289,000, a difference of almost 100,000. If one takes the lowest of the lower bound estimates and the highest of the higher bound estimates the gap is of the order of 200,000. See Mokyr, ‘Deadly fungus’, tables 3 and 4, pp 248–9.

49 For politely expressed reservations regarding the accuracy of the 1821 census, see Report of the commissioners appointed to take the census of Ireland for the year 1841, p. viii, H.C. 1843 [504], xxiv, 8. Professor Lee suggests (somewhat casually) that the population figure of 6.8 millions, reported in the 1821 census, should be revised upwards to 7.2 millions. See Lee, J. J., ‘On the accuracy of the pre-Famine Irish censuses’ in Goldstrom, J. M. and Clarkson, L. A. (eds.), Irish population, economy and society (Oxford, 1981), pp 37–56.Google Scholar

50 Mokyr, ‘Deadly fungus’, p. 242.

51 MacArthur, W. P., ‘Medical history of the famine’ in Edwards, R. D. and Williams, T. D. (eds.), The great famine (Dublin, 1962), pp 263–315 Google Scholar. Even in the absence of abnormal movements of disease-ridden people the regular seasonal migratory labourers, as well as cattle-drovers, tramps and others, would have acted as significant carriers of infection once local epidemics had broken out.

52 Ibid., p. 307.

53 The role of evictions in generating disease and death is brought out clearly in this brief extract from a harrowing account of evictions in Kilrush union, County Clare:

See Reports and returns relating to evictions in the Kilrush union, p. 5, H.C. 1849 [1089], xlix, 319.

54 The obvious problem, apart from that of calculating such a measure, is that it does not allow for the distribution of food resources within an area.

55 Cullen, Economic history of Ireland, p. 132; Mokyr, ‘Deadly fungus’, p. 273.

56 Hechter, Internal colonialism, p. 270.

57 The famine in north-west Scotland, contemporaneous with that in Ireland, may be a case in point, though the emigration and migration data are too poor to check this adequately. See Flinn, M. W., ‘Malthus, emigration and potatoes in the Scottish north-west, 1770-1879’ in Cullen, L. M. and Smout, T. C. (eds.), Comparative aspects of Scottish and Irish economic and social history, 1600-1900 (Edinburgh, 1977), p. 57.Google Scholar

58 Mokyr, Joel, ‘Irish history with the potato’ in Irish Economic and Social History, viii (1981), pp 8–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. An appendix to this article presents important new estimates of potato acreage in each county on the eve of the famine. These are based on a skilful reworking of the constabulary survey of 1846.

59 Mokyr, ‘Deadly fungus’, pp 268–9.

60 Mokyr, ‘Irish history’, pp 8–29.

61 Connell, Population of Ireland, chs 5 and 6.

62 Cullen, L. M., ‘Irish history without the potato’ in Past & Present, no. 40 (1968), pp 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Mokyr, ‘Irish history’, p. 27. See also Cullen, ‘Irish history without the potato’, pp 72–83.

64 Mokyr, ‘Irish history’, p. 27.

65 Mokyr, Joel, ‘Industrialisation and poverty in Ireland and the Netherlands’ in Journal of Interdisciplinary History, x, no. 3 (1980), pp 429-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Ibid., p. 451.

67 Gráda, Cormac Ó, ‘On some aspects of productivity change in Irish agriculture, 1845-1926’, paper presented to the International Economic History Congress, Edinburgh, 1978.Google Scholar

68 Mokyr, ‘Industrialisation and poverty’, pp 450–51.

69 See foreword by Barry Supple to McCloskey, D. N., Enterprise and trade in Victorian Britain (London, 1981), p. x.Google Scholar

70 An Irish history without Cullen would pay much more attention to economic development as a political as well as an economic process. For instance, in the second half of the nineteenth century when Britain was firmly attached to a unilateral freetrade position, and thus eschewing policies of trade retaliation, it is quite likely that a structure of selective tariffs and export subsidies would have benefited sectors of the Irish economy. Such political action presupposes, of course, a substantial degree of political and constitutional autonomy.